Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Katha Upanishad Shankara Bhashya Chapter 1 Valli 3 Mantra 4










Mantra 4

Indriyaani hayaan aahuh vishayaams teshu gocharaan
Aatmendriya-mano-yuktam bhoktetyaahur maneeshinah

Gist:
Indriyaanni hayaan ayuhu – the sense organs are compared to the horses. The fivefold sense objects are the roads or pathways through which the sense organs move – so gocharaha means the pathways - shabda sparsha rupa rasa and gandha. Shrotram will move only through shabda, and thus each sense organ will only travel in its own path, and they have their own discipline (unlike Madras traffic! :-). Atmaindirya manoyuktam – atma refers to body (in this context), indriya is sense, mana is mind – chidAbhasa associated with these three components is called bhokta – the jivA.

The jA by itself is nothing but pA in its original nature but because the jA is assoc with the mind-body complex then it “becomes” a kartA-bhoktA-pramata The OC is turiyam but in the proximity of antama these three (k-b-p) are superimposed and with that superimposition the atma “becomes” a jiva. Hence in such a context does AS says that atmanam atmaindriyamanoyuktam (atman in association with body,senses and mind – note atma occurs twice the 1st refers to the consciousness and the 2nd refers to the body in this context). This is declared by maneeshinah – the Wise Ones.

Now the bhashya:
“Indriyani is = chakshuradini (5 sense organs beginning with the eye) – hyaan is not translate – we note it means horses. Aahuh means - they declare – who? those who are experts in the chariot imagery.
Samaanya dharma in this example is shareera ratha aakashyam – both are pullers or things that drag. The horses drag the chariot and the sense organs drag the body.

“Shweshwena …”
Teshu – hyatvena parikalpitena when the sense organs are compared to the horses, then for those horses, gocharAn viddhi – may you understand their paths or tracts. Another word would be mArgAn. What are the tracts? roopAdi vishayan – the sense objects in the form of rupA etc. In tradition they do not say the chair is the object of the eye (– normally we say my eyes are seeing the wall and the wall is the object of my eye) – instead they say the colour is the object. Similarly when you listen to Swamiji you should not say Swamiji is the object, but the sound (of the voice) is the object. So tradition we never say that any specific things like wall, etc are objects we only say there are five objects only. Hence alone AS carefully says rupAdi.
Who is the samsAri?> this is a question often asked in Vedanta. Do you say chit(OC) is the samsAri? Do you say chidabhasa(RC) is samsAri? Or do you say anatma(RM) is samsAri? Since individual is a mix of all three – hence this is a valid question. RC can never be there without OC and wherever RC is there, RM is also there – these three are always there. The samsAri attribute should be given to which one? Someitmes in vedantA it is OC< sometimes they will say RC – according to context. Normally speaking samsara attribute should belong to RC or ahankAra (k-b-p). This is correct – nothing wrong in saying this. Sometimes in Vedanta they also say all three being mithyA (RM,RC, and samsara) all being mithyA, they are all resting upon OC the adhishtAnam only. Therefore these three are appearing or are superimposed upon Atma only, therefore Atma itself is appearing as a samsAri – the samsAri attribute is transferred from RC. Sometimes in Vedanta samsara dharma of chidabhAsa is appearing on Atma – it does not belong to Atma. Therefore in that context they say Atma is samsAri because of samsara attribute being transferred onto to the Atma. It is this latter context that is used by the Up here.
Hence it says – atmaindriyamanoyuktam is translated by AS as shareeraindriyamano-sahitam, the adhitana AtmA bhokta iti aahu – the AtmA appears as a bhoktA, appears to be samsAri because of what? Transferred from ahankAra. Maneeshinah = vivekinah.
I the Sakashi appears to samsAri because of the samsara attribute of ahankara being transferred.
Kevalasya atmanah – for the pure atma, the sakshi atma, the real I, the OC, bhoktrtatvam nasti – does not have the samsAri status, is asamsAri. Why then does it appear as a samsAri? Only because of buddhyAdi upAdhikrtam - the proximity of the upAdhi – buddhyAdi – which are in the form of buddhi, etc (in other words RM) Why does AS add this paragraph? Because it establishes advaitA. Samsari status for Atma - it is an incidental status it is not intrinsic status. [When I say you look beautiful in this dress – even though it looks like a compliment, if you read in between the lines it means without this dress you look ugly!:-)]
Whatever is incidental is not real attribute. Whatever is not real you need not remove. Incidental is borrowed. Incidental status is unreal. Samsari status is incidental status. And hence unreal. Unreal status cannot disturb me. What is unreal need not be removed. I need not work hard to remove it. Then what should I do to remove it?! You need not remove it – understand the unreal status for what it is. If I say I have understood but liberation has not come, it means understanding is still lacking.
Tatha cha – to corroborate this point – my samsaritvam (k-b-p put together) is incidental and hence unreal, shrutyantaram darhsyati is explicitly by another mantra. Wheras this Katha Up mantra does not explicitly reveal but another Shruti vAkyam explicitly reveals this – which one “Brh Up 4.3.7 – this is AS pet quotation – kevalsay abhoktrtvam – for me the SAkshi intrinsically abhoktram eva – abhoktram alone my real status. The moment we try to remove bhoktrtvam we lend reality to bhoktrtvam. Never say I will exhaust my prarabdha – the moment you are waiting to complete the prarabdha you are assuming you are bhokta, who has prarabdha, and you have to exhaust it for videha mukti is going to come! – all this thinking is a BLUNDER – I am akarta I am abhokta where is the question of exhausting prarabdha – so not for me is any agami sanchita or prarabdha karma. How does it real – dhyAyati iva – the Up says that I the Atma is as though meditating – the emphasis is on iva - really speaking I don’t meditate at all – and why? lelayati iva- because I am as though agitated – emphasis once again is on as though – really speaking I have neither agitation nor do I need meditation – because they belong to RM and RC and I am ever muktA. If you want to enjoy meditation as a hobby – welcome – if you want to do it as a sadhana – then you have not listened to Vedanta. Where is the question of sadhana for moksha when my intrinsic nature is nitya mukta atma.
Moment you say you have sadhana for the teacher it is a shodhana (problem)!

Continuing
“Evam..
Once te fact is RM is there is mithyA, RC in mithyA and ahankara is mithyA and ahankara is samsAri mithyA and I the oc am mithyA and am ever asamsari. But because of avidyA, “I” have superimposed anatma on atma, transferred samsAri status onto myself, with help of Vedanta, I want to withdraw from anatma, from chidabhasa, and this withdrawal is not a physical withdrawal, but a intellectual withdrawal – how? I am not the body, not the mind, not karanashareeram etc – and therefore samsAri status does not belong to me – thus after all negation I can claim my swarUpam - I am nitya muktaha
If samsAri status is unreal for me then ALONE moksha is possible through knowledge.
On the other hand if samsAri status real then it can never be negatable – intrinsic nature of a thing can never be negated – if samsAri status is real for me then any type of sadhana can remove this - not by by karma, by upasana, even by jnana it can never be removed because satyam is abhaditam – even Bhagawan cannot help because real status of something can be removed even by Bhagawan.
Evam cha sati – only if this is true – (my samsAri status is unreal )- vakshyamAnAm pratipatti – the knowledge that is going to taught later – Vaishnavasya padasya atmatataya – the knowledge of Vishnu’s swarupam as my real nature – upapadhyate - will be possible - only if samsaritvam is unreal. Nobody should say I have clearly understood Vedanta and I am waiting for moksha – there is no bigger contradiction in the enter Cosmos! Na anyataha – not otherwise – means if samsAri status is real then moksha is never never possible. If I ask for Moksha it is like fire praying to Bhagwan please make me cold – it is not possible! Similarly if samsaritvam is my real nature then even Bhagwan cannot help - Why? Svabhava anadikramaat – because a s real status can never be eliminated!
We should remember - a corresponding Mandukya kArika “- saamsiddhikii svaabhaavikii sahaja akrtaa cha yaa; prakrtih seti vijneyaa svabhaavam na jahaati yaa”

Swabhava is that which can never be erased - if samsara is my swabhava it can never be erased. These arguments are very relevant to negate jnana-karma-samuchhya – when moksha is possible by mere knowledge, why should I combine jnAnam with regular anushtanam.
There are some time who feel that alongwith jnAnam one must practice anushtanam and the jnana-anushtanam combination gives liberation. AS says this is foolish - anushtanam you can have before knowledge but once knowledge has been gained where is question of anushtanam.
For liberation anushtanam can exist for a grhstha for lokasangraha but cann never exist as a sadhana for liberation.

Anvya
Maneeshinah indriyani hayaanaahuh; vishayan teshu gocharaan (aahuh). Atmaindriyamanoyuktam (aatmanam) “bhokta”-iti maneeshinah prahuh.